The case for the 16mm

[agorabasta]

Now everybody should stop running any tests of those 'lenses'.

That's because the variations between the builds of the thing are too widely spaced wrt the objective measurables. And even more so because the results depend too much of the body to test with.

So if there's a good combination, one should consider the self happy.

My experience is that, the C3 body is better for general user 'happiness'.
But if you get a truly im-bloody-possible good sample of the thing, you get no corner smear even with the original Nex5/3.
And then the Nex5/3 is the best body for that rare 'ideal' copy...

[alphaomega]

Agorabasta wrote

So if there's a good combination, one should consider the self happy.

My experience is that, the C3 body is better for general user 'happiness'.
But if you get a truly im-bloody-possible good sample of the thing, you get no corner smear even with the original Nex5/3.
And then the Nex5/3 is the best body for that rare 'ideal' copy...

Well, I am a happy chappie with my NEX-5/16mm pancake combination and also with the W/A extender fitted (apart from the CA). I received a bad copy with my two lens NEX-5 kit. Rather than sending the whole lot back (as the NEX was fine and so was the 18-55), I sent the 16mm to Sony UK for repair together with some test shots showing the problems. In just over a week the 16mm was returned and I was amazed at the transformation. Rather than fretting, I suggest that if you have received a sub standard copy you send it to Sony together with test pictures and state it is defective and demand a repair.

[agorabasta]

In just over a week the 16mm was returned and I was amazed at the transformation.

Sounds like a good business idea!
Buy all the 16mm stock, pick the very few percent good ones out, then send the rest back to Sony for 'repair'. Then just resell the results at a doubled price - still cheap and guaranteed quality, quite unlike the original ****.

Happy New Year, and let's continue to enjoy the good things coming our way, no matter how unexpected!

[Vidgamer]

Hmm. So many people have complained about the corners, I have assumed my copy is mostly typical.

[Vidgamer]

I uploaded some 100% crops.

This is 100% crop from the center -- f6.3, 1/40. I had to do some CA and PF removal, but I think sharpness is great. Maybe someone can comment on whether some of the coloring around tree limbs is more due to a weak AA-filter and a lens that out-resolves the sensor rather than CA.

http://www.computingbits.com/photograph ... r_crop.jpg
(Can't imbed due to this forum's limitations.)

This is a 100% crop from the lower right corner. What's funny is that when I go to print this photo at 8x10, half of this below doesn't exist, as the edges are cropped off to fit the aspect ratio. None of the blurry bits make it to the final photo. Even so, I don't think this is particularly objectionable -- not when you see what a small portion of the entire photo this is!



BTW, I find that using DxO really improves things. I'm probably cheating by using it, but the internet experts say that DxO doesn't work (at least to improve sharpness -- they're wrong), along with the 16mm. I'm using both. So there.

Now, I'm sure that there are some that will insist on seeing the lens at its worst, at f2.8. I took some photos at f2.8, even some that I'm really happy with. But it's not really sensible to me to take outdoor landscape photos at f2.8.

[bossel]

For a corner with the 16mm, that looks pretty good!

[Vidgamer]

For a corner with the 16mm, that looks pretty good!

The bad corner blurriness you see at wide apertures is buried deep into the corner of this corner crop. It's basically gone by f7 or f8. Given typical aspect ratios for printing, I think in actual use, there's a lot of leeway. On an overcast day like this, f6.3 is fine.

I'll see if I can use the lens today. It'll be indoors where I need the width and low light capability.

[bfitzgerald]

I read this review:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showprod ... 346/cat/82

It never really seems to "get there" on the corners even stopped down which is surprising for a prime lens.

[alphaomega]

No need to worry about the 16mm pancake performance or indeed any other Sony lens as here comes Canon storming in thanks to Metabones with an improved version:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/metabone ... -by-eoshd/

A couple of weeks ago we reported that Metabones would release a new Canon to NEX adapter that has electronic aperture control and Image Stabilization support. The estimate launch date for the adapter was January 21st but because of the high demand there is not a single of them in Stock at Conurus.com. At least our friend Andrew from EosHD (Click here) could get his hands on one of them and tested it on the NEX-7. I am not going to unveil you all his findings but I like that phrase he wrote: “The adapter works as you’d expect with no lag, and OIS works fine. It really is like having a Canon mirrorless camera.”

More details here http://www.eoshd.com/content/7141/metab ... nex-review
Just $399 if you can get hold of one. Seems to be sold out - probably for video enthusiasts. It is just another indication to me that the NEX-7 shall be my next and final camera purchase for a long time. Just think of the Canon T&S lenses that become a possibility on a NEX body. It will be a question of time only before a similar highly specified converter becomes available for Nikon lenses. I think these releases will further assist Sony in "shifting" NEX cameras regardless of their lethargic release of NEX lenses.

[artington]

I read this review:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showprod ... 346/cat/82

It never really seems to "get there" on the corners even stopped down which is surprising for a prime lens.

I just wonder who really cares about corner sharpness on a lens like this. After all, you're getting a 24mm equivalent with 2.8 wide open on a tiny lens costing peanuts with no worries about colour banding and needing to use Cornerfix. So what if the corners aren't sharp below f5.6? Unless it's for commercial work who is likely to notice? Even then? And if it is for commercial use buy a top alternative lens like the CZ16-35 or the Nikon 17-35 and use an adapter. As for me, I love it and if soft corners are occasionally objectionable I simply crop them out!

[bfitzgerald]

Problem is I think
a: It's a prime lens (people tend to expect better performance)
b: It doesn't really get there even stopped down let alone at faster apertures

When I had the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 yes it's not as wide but being blunt it would tear this lens a new one. Only very slight drop off even at 17mm f2.8 and it's great stopped down just a bit. The issues are not just field curvature (both suffer from that) If you are outside you'd likely stop down anyway. But inside not a lot of point having an f2.8 on an APS-C sensor if you can't really use it at that speed.

[David Kilpatrick]

Barry - my 16mm seems to perform superbly on the NEX-5n. I've been shooting pictures for publication all day yesterday and today at Focus on Imaging, and they are really very much up to pro standard - sharp corner to corner at f/8 which is all I need, also with the 12mm adaptor. I'm sure some alternative like the the Fuji 18mm f/2 on X-Pro1 would be better, and who knows, I might go down that route!

David

[bakubo]

Barry - my 16mm seems to perform superbly on the NEX-5n. I've been shooting pictures for publication all day yesterday and today at Focus on Imaging, and they are really very much up to pro standard - sharp corner to corner at f/8 which is all I need, also with the 12mm adaptor. I'm sure some alternative like the the Fuji 18mm f/2 on X-Pro1 would be better, and who knows, I might go down that route!

I have looked at the Fuji X-Pro1 a couple of times. Saw it again yesterday and the store had all 3 of the new lenses sitting out too. Seems to be a very nice camera. The switchable OVF/EVF is quite nice. I wonder why no one else has this? It is fairly large, bigger than the X100, close to Leica territory. Speaking of Leica, I played around with a Leica M9 a bit yesterday too. Just like any cheap digicam it was sitting out for anyone to play with and no salesman hanging around to bother you. Also, played with a Nikon D4 -- a huge monster, but no different than the other Nikon and Canon models at this level. Definitely have absolutely no interest in these sorts of cameras and no interest in the M9 -- even if the price for these cameras was not otherworldly expensive. The M9 is sort of a monster in size/weight also. In the little used camera shop window where I saw the old, green Kodak Signet 35 yesterday they had a whole bunch of Leica models going up to the M6. You could see how they got bigger with the M5 being the biggest and the M6 shrinking a bit to be more the size of the M4 or whatever. I find the Leica ergonomics to not be too good, but I guess when they were smaller that very smooth body with a collapsible lens might fit into the breast pocket of some jackets -- pretty heavy though. These days it just looks to be a rather inconvenient shape though.

[bfitzgerald]

David I'm just going on what I have seen with this lens. My corners are not great on my 19-35mm (on 35mm film) even stopped right down (they're not bad though unless you are very close to the subject) sometimes it doesn't matter even at bigger print sizes (I agree folks get a bit hung up on it at times)
I still think for a prime it's a little bit below what you might expect

As for the Fuji X-Pro1 focus by wire, instant turn off has to be said. Hate it with an intense passion some great ideas there but Fuji are hit and miss of late esp with their "orb" sensors and lens sag issues.

Henry is right about those big FF bodies no thanks too much cost, bulk, weight not my style at all. Even if you gave me one for nothing I would sell it and spend it on a D700 or something (ie more manageable size/weight wise)

[Vidgamer]

Problem is I think
a: It's a prime lens (people tend to expect better performance)

Better than what? A zoom, I would say. I think it does do better overall than my zooms, but I've only done detailed comparisons with the kit lens.

b: It doesn't really get there even stopped down let alone at faster apertures

It seems to for me, as it does for David. Good enough, to be sure.

But even when you're "not there" it is sometimes still good. In my above example, even when you're not at f8, when you frame for 8x10, you lose the corners and the softer bits. Suddenly you realize that as a purely practical matter, the lens is very useful. Even with softer corners, it often doesn't matter; occasionally it does, but as a practical matter, these situations, for me, tend to be more outdoors rather than indoors in poor lighting.

When I had the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 yes it's not as wide but being blunt it would tear this lens a new one. Only very slight drop off even at 17mm f2.8 and it's great stopped down just a bit. The issues are not just field curvature (both suffer from that) If you are outside you'd likely stop down anyway. But inside not a lot of point having an f2.8 on an APS-C sensor if you can't really use it at that speed.

The Tamron 17-50! I recall using it at f2.8 one time indoors to take some portraits. The corners are soft and overall it is kind of soft. Wow that was a bit of a mistake, I thought, but fortunately it wasn't like pro results were needed. Stopped down to f4 the lens is pretty sharp, so it was one of my favorite lenses on my DSLR. But I guess how usable it is at f2.8 is debatable. Sure, you can use it and suffer the resolution loss, but the Nex 16mm is still pretty good in the center at f2.8. If forced to choose between the two, I'd say that the 16mm would be preferable, all else being equal. If I needed a 50mm FL, I probably wouldn't choose the 16. But the brutal truth is that I own both of these lenses and the Nex 18-55 kit lens, and I never use the Tamron 17-50 anymore, which is really a shame. On the Nex it's huge and heavy and seems to offer little advantage except for a lower light capability which I can get out of primes if necessary. It was a bit heavy on my DSLR, but on the Nex it's silly. I really like the Tamron 17-50, but I think it has it's own flaws and quirks. I guess it doesn't help that i prefer the native lenses for AF as well. I compared the Nex 18-55 to my primes and decided that the 18-55 is probably good enough for general use; extreme pixel-peeping is needed to see differences in real-world photos.

Basically, if you're worried about "pro results", I wouldn't use either lens at f2.8, although the Nex 16mm is pretty quirky at other focal lengths. If you're expecting a perfect prime then sure you'll be disappointed, but David seemed to have problems coming up with other wide angle lenses that were better. I think the Sony lens is surprising -- yes, it is flawed, but then it surprises you with good contrast and sharpness except for those weird corners. What do you want for $250?

Have you tried comparing the 16mm with other lenses in realistic situations? Or even the Nex 18-55? I know people want these lenses to be poor for some reason -- perhaps because it seems unrealistic that Sony, a non-traditional camera company, comes out with good performing lenses for decent pricing (as did Minolta), but I'd rather have good bang-for-the-buck options than $1000 lenses that I'll never be able to justify with my budget. But if price is no object, I hope you can find that flawless lens!